January 15, 2005
GRAB YOUR SABOTS!:
An Epistle for the New Religion of Transhumanism: James Hughes is a transhumanist evangelist, says Wesley J. Smith, and Citizen Cyborg urges followers to be true to their faith while revealing its nihilistic shortcomings (Wesley J. Smith, January 12, 2005, BetterHumans)
James Hughes may be a bioethicist and a professor of health policy at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, but his real calling is as an evangelist for the nascent materialist quasi-religion of transhumanism. In this sense, Hughes' first book, Citizen Cyborg, is not merely a polemic; it is an epistle urging transhumanists to remain true to the tenets of their faith.Transhumanists, Hughes tells us, plan to break the constraining chains of natural human existence through various genetic, computer and machine "enhancements." But the underlying theme that permeates Hughes' fervent advocacy is faith in science as the true savior of humankind. Indeed, his belief in our capacity to exert technological mastery over life is so wholehearted, he asserts that perhaps within this century, transhumanist tinkering will free us from most of the ravages of disease, disability and aging, make up for any inborn lack of talent or athletic ability, perhaps even lead to the defeat of death itself. Not only that, but eventually the transhumanized will become so superior to the merely human that some will evolve themselves into a super race of "posthumans."
And here's where transhumanism becomes a quasi-religion. The reality of human suffering and our knowledge that we are born to die, can cast a dark shadow over even our happiest hours. Historically, humans have sought succor—some would say escape—in religious teachings that posit a purpose behind it all and the hope of eventual eternal transcendence.
But Hughes and most of his fellow transhumanists, being good materialists, believe that what you see is all you get. Moreover, transhumanism is nihilistic at its core, holding that being merely human is wholly inadequate to attaining a truly fulfilled and happy life. For transhumanists, humans aren't smart enough, strong enough, pretty enough or healthy enough for life to really be worth living. Besides, it is all over so soon. To put it crassly, life sucks and then you die.
But wait! Salvation is nigh! We may have rejected that old time religion, but the faith of transhumanism still offers us the eschatological hope of a new promised land. Through applied science, genetic engineering, biotech, nanotech, cybertech and every other kind of tech, we can eliminate suffering, enhance our inadequate capacities, become self-designing super beings with creative powers akin to gods, perhaps even attain immortality itself. And we don't even have to pray.
But first, we must defeat the infidels! As with many high priests before him, Hughes spends almost as much time castigating unbelievers who threaten the holy project—the dreaded "bioLuddites"—as he does in promoting his own beliefs.
The interesting question isn't whether these folks can evolve themselves into a new species--which is too improbable to worry about--but why folks who believe in such a thing would think that we humans would tolerate a rival species. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 15, 2005 7:22 PM
Heh. From Trinity College, no less....
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at January 15, 2005 7:28 PMI don't know if you read science fiction, but Isaac Asimov anticipated this sort of future and conflict in his later robot novels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caves_of_Steel
Posted by: Brandon at January 15, 2005 8:14 PMThe plotline sounds very familiar. Ah, yes: CS Lewis' That Hideous Strength. The priest Straik, blaspheming the prophesies about the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead by saying that science would fulfill the promise.
We've heard it all before.
Steve Bragg
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS
A rival species to humans now exists, courtesy of nature.
Posted by: carter at January 15, 2005 11:31 PMWe're already transhuman ... by Neanderthal standards.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at January 16, 2005 1:50 AMDidn't Kenneth Branagh play this guy in the Wild, Wild West movie?
Posted by: Bart at January 16, 2005 8:02 AMOnly he is lost who thinks himself lost. If we have not the will to hold the sentient niche for ourselves, we deserve to be supplanted. Tolkien made this point nicely with the character of Denethor
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 16, 2005 10:31 AMOJ: Joseph has the point. the Neanderthals were a species of the genus Homo of which there were several. There is only one now. The best inference is that our ancestors killed the males and raped the women. The probability is that the children of those misaliances were, if any, were mules.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 17, 2005 4:06 AMOur track record for staying within God-proscribed boundaries is about as good as the track record for the average toddler coloring inside the lines of his coloring book. Remember Adam & Eve? Prometheus? Pandora?
The question is, once we know how to cross the genetic boundary between human and transhuman, what will keep us from doing so? I think that there is a principle of human behavior, elucidated by Victor Frankl in his book "Man's Search for Meaning", which may answer the question, though I doubt that Frankl, a survivor of Nazi death camps, would approve.
Frankl noticed that even under the most hopeless and inhuman conditions, people varied in their ability to endure them and to survive. He believed that one must find meaning in suffering in order to endure it. The one essential trait that the human psyche must preserve in order to survive is meaning.
But Frankl draws the line between meaningful suffering and masochism. One must find meaning in suffering only when the suffering is unavoidable. There can be no meaning in avoidable suffering. If one can escape suffering, but does not, one is a masochist.
How does this relate to trans-humanism? Look at how our attitudes have changed relative to illness and suffering in the last 100 years. People were stoic in the face of pain, debilitating disease and death 100 years ago because medicine could do little to ameliorate it. People saw these things as unavoidable, and so found meaning in their suffering as best they could.
Nowadays, many of the diseases and conditions that were untreatable back then can be treated now. Very few people see any meaning in suffering these conditions today without medical treatment. Aggressive treatment for advanced stages of heart disease and cancer are pursued, because given a choice, people will not choose stoic resignation over hope. There is no meaning in such resignation when options are available.
Once people see that genetic engineering can ameliorate conditions for their children, such as susceptibility to disease, or low IQ, or dysfunctional personality traits, or cosmetic appearance, what reasons can they give themselves which will make denying these options to their children meaningful? Religion will fight mightily against this trend, but seeing how well it did in the aforementioned historical circumstances, I am not hopeful for its success.
Which is not to say that I am in favor of such a trend. It may turn out disastrously for manind, or it may prove to offer real benefits. But I have little hope that the line will hold indefinitely.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at January 17, 2005 12:42 PMOJ, how does that even apply? Genetic modifications aren't likely to be forced upon us by Nazis, but will slowly make their way into the gene pool by the free choices of individuals taking advantage of medical breakthroughs. Are the parents of the natural children going to rise up and kill the genetically modified children?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at January 18, 2005 2:17 PMAll the Nazis wanted to do was create a better species too--it's intolerable to decent people for obvious reasons, but were it possible we'd kill the superior beings for Darwinian reasons.
Posted by: oj at January 18, 2005 2:23 PMYou won't even notice that they are around until it's too late. They won't be super-soldiers who come to put you in a camp, they'll just be good looking people who never get sick and who don't age.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at January 19, 2005 1:02 AMRobert:
Right--they'll be a superior race that keeps the fact hidden and asks no special treatment. That's typical.
Posted by: oj at January 19, 2005 7:40 AM